Exploring Effective Presentations: Why Does the Feeling That 'Something Is Off' Start Later? — The Discomfort That Wasn't Visible in the Moment | The Reality of Inception-Style Presentations
This story continues from here.
In the moment,
no one objected.
"Let's go with that."
That was also said.
But,
for some reason, it didn't feel right.
It wasn't that there was any anxiety.
If anything,
it was too perfect.
No one objected.
There were no sharp questions either.
The atmosphere was positive from start to finish.
Just a little bit,
something rippled.
But,
the true nature of that discomfort,
I didn't realize it at the time.
I understand it now.
No one was
speaking in their own words.
The lack of questions might be
not because they understand deeply, but
because it hasn't become personal yet.
And a few days later,
the decisions made
are never executed,
quietly drifting away.
This kind of thing
happens surprisingly often.
What you will learn in this article
・The reason why people waver later despite being convinced at the time
・The difference between a 'decision that has become the other party's own' and a 'borrowed decision'
・Why decisions are overwritten by other information later
・The difference between a state where a decision remains and one where it does not
・How to tell if the landscape remains within the other person
The reason why people waver later despite being convinced at the time
People,
In the atmosphere of the moment,
it makes sense.
Those around you agree as well.
The flow of the conversation isn't bad either.
The explanation is easy to understand.
Therefore,
in that moment,
you can think, 'That's fine.'
However,
that decision
does not necessarily remain with the other person.
This is because,
even if they understand it in the moment,
it may not have been organized as their own judgment.
While listening to the talk,
it was clear.
However,
the moment you leave the conference room,
the view disappears.
The comparison criteria,
The priorities,
And why that direction was chosen,
All vanish together.
That is why,
When new information comes in later, it is easily shaken.
The difference between 'a decision that has become the other party's own' and 'a borrowed decision'
Regarding decisions,
There are decisions that have become the other party's own, and
Decisions that remain borrowed.
A borrowed decision
Only holds up while it is being explained.
It only holds up while the speaker is present.
It only holds up while looking at the materials.
However,
once you leave the room, the outline suddenly becomes faint.
This is because,
it has not been transformed into the other person's own words.
A decision that has become their own,
even after the meeting ends,
can be explained to someone else.
They can explain 'why that direction' in their own words.
They can compare it themselves, saying, 'There are other options, but this one has a higher priority this time.'
Once it reaches that point,
that decision remains within them.
Why is it overwritten by other information later?
If the terrain is not left within the other person,
they are easily swayed by information that comes in later.
A new idea.
New numbers.
Someone else's opinion.
A stronger way of putting it.
Every time things like that come in,
the decision wavers.
But,
that is not because the other party is indecisive.
The initial decision,
had not yet taken root.
That is,
all there is to it.
In a presentation,
sometimes only the answer is handed over.
But,
the reason for the comparison as well,
The criteria used for selection
were not shared either.
That is why
only the conclusion
is left hanging.
For example,
when comparing Proposal A and Proposal B,
'Proposal A seems better somehow'
is not enough,
so if documents for Proposal B appear later,
it will easily waver.
However,
'If we are talking about short-term sales, it's Proposal A, but if we consider the brand five years from now, it's Proposal B'
if that axis of comparison remains,
even if new information comes in,
the decision will not easily collapse.
The difference between a state where a decision remains and one where it does not
There is a common thread
in states where decisions remain.
The other party can
speak in their own words.
explain it to someone else.
compare it with other proposals.
fill in the gaps themselves regarding 'why this direction'.
Conversely,
when no decision remains,
'I think it was good'
is all that is left.
Why was it good?
Compared to what is it that way?
Why is it that now?
That part is not left behind.
That is why,
after the meeting, the whole scene fades away.
How to tell if the landscape remains within the other person
Whether the landscape remains within the other person
can be difficult to discern during a meeting.
However,
one easy way to tell is
whether the other person can replay the conversation after the meeting.
Can they explain it to someone else?
Even after the meeting has ended,
can they say,
'That was for this reason, right?'
When other ideas come up,
can they say for themselves,
'But this time, it's better to prioritize this one'?
If it has remained to that extent,
That decision is
no longer something borrowed.
So then,
is opposition
really such a bad thing?
Rather than approval in a vacuum,
having someone oppose it
might mean something is still happening.
That day,
the reason there was no opposition
might be because no one had brought
that topic onto their own playing field.
Summary
• Even if they agree on the spot, if it isn't organized as their own judgment, it will waver later
• Borrowed decisions lose their definition once you leave the room
• A lack of questions might not mean they understand deeply, but rather that it hasn't become their own issue yet
• What is needed is not to leave behind a 'feeling that it was good,' but to leave behind 'why it is in that direction'
• If the other party can replay it in their own words after the meeting, that decision remains